Difference between revisions of "Prohibition of Blood/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
<point><b>"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם"</b> – This verse forms the basis for this approach, but commentators focus on different aspects of it, leading to two related, but somewhat distinct understandings of the prohibition:<br/> | <point><b>"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם"</b> – This verse forms the basis for this approach, but commentators focus on different aspects of it, leading to two related, but somewhat distinct understandings of the prohibition:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>Apportioned to Hashem</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ramban, the crucial point of the verse is that the blood is dedicated to the altar.<fn>The verse's mention of the blood's role in atonement is somewhat secondary, mentioned only to explain why specifically the blood was chosen to be Hashem's portion.</fn> | + | <li><b>Apportioned to Hashem</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ramban, the crucial point of the verse is that the blood is dedicated to the altar.<fn>The verse's mention of the blood's role in atonement is somewhat secondary, mentioned only to explain why specifically the blood was chosen to be Hashem's portion.</fn> Blood is off limits to man because it is Hashem's portion of the sacrifice (חלק גבוה).</li> |
<li><b>Role in atonement</b> – Ralbag, Abarbanel and R. Hoffmann, instead, focus on the blood's role in atonement.</li> | <li><b>Role in atonement</b> – Ralbag, Abarbanel and R. Hoffmann, instead, focus on the blood's role in atonement.</li> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ"</b> – According to this approach, this phrase comes to explain not why it is prohibited to eat blood, but why blood was chosen to serve as atonement and is sprinkled on the altar. Since blood represents or is the source of the animal's soul, it can represent man's soul and act as its substitute on the altar.</point> | <point><b>"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ"</b> – According to this approach, this phrase comes to explain not why it is prohibited to eat blood, but why blood was chosen to serve as atonement and is sprinkled on the altar. Since blood represents or is the source of the animal's soul, it can represent man's soul and act as its substitute on the altar.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Why is blood of non-sacrificial meat prohibited?</b> As only the blood of domesticated animals being offered as a sacrifice is sanctified to Hashem and used for atonement, this approach must explain why blood of "בשר תאווה" and non domesticated animals and birds are also prohibited:<br/> | + | <point><b>Why is blood of non-sacrificial meat prohibited?</b> As only the blood of domesticated animals being offered as a sacrifice is sanctified to Hashem and used for atonement, this approach must explain why blood of "בשר תאווה"  (meat eaten for pleasure) and non domesticated animals and birds are also prohibited:<br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Ramban suggests that this is simply a safeguard to ensure that no one err and eat the blood of animals which can be sacrificed.</li> | + | <li>Safeguard – Ramban suggests that this is simply a safeguard to ensure that no one err and eat the blood of animals which can be sacrificed.</li> |
| − | <li>R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,<fn>As many of the other sources here also point to multiple reasons for the prohibition of blood, they might agree.</fn> though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.<fn>R"y Bekhor Shor suggests that they are forbidden because it is inappropriate to eat the life force of an animal, while Netziv points to the detrimental affects that eating non-domesticated animal blood have on human nature.</fn></li> | + | <li>Distinct prohibition – R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,<fn>As many of the other sources here also point to multiple reasons for the prohibition of blood, they might agree.</fn> though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.<fn>R"y Bekhor Shor suggests that they are forbidden because it is inappropriate to eat the life force of an animal, while Netziv points to the detrimental affects that eating non-domesticated animal blood have on human nature.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Spilling vs. covering blood</b> | + | <point><b>Spilling vs. covering blood</b><ul> |
| − | + | <li>These sources explain that since the blood of non-domesticated animals is not sprinkled on the altar, it was necessary to institute a different reminder that it is prohibited to eat of it and thus it is covered. No such reminder is necessary for domesticated animals eaten for pleasure, since those animals are associated with sacrifices and it is known that their blood in general serves to atone on the altar (even if in this particular instance the animal is being eaten). </li> | |
| − | + | <li>Ramban adds that in the Wilderness period, eating meat for pleasure, not as part of a sacrifice, was prohibited regardless, so the scenario never arose.  By the time the nation settled in Israel, there was less of a need for a reminder, as the people were already accustomed to not eating blood.<fn>Ralbag explaims that the desire to eat blood was stronger in the first generation that left Egypt, as they had been accustomed to such practices in Egypt.  By the time the nation arrived in Israel and eating meat for pleasure was permitted, there was less of a lust for blood and so less of a need to make a reminder.</fn></li> | |
| − | |||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Connection to fat</b> – These sources assume that the two prohibitions share a single explanation | + | <point><b>Prohibition to Noach</b> – If the prohibition of blood is related to the sacrificial service, one might question why Noach was already commanded, ""אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" (Bereshit 9:4), centuries before the service was instituted:<br/> |
| − | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor | + | <ul> |
| + | <li><b>Different prohibtion</b> - Most of these sources follow Bavli Sanhedrin 59a and assume that the prohibition to Noach did not refer to eating blood but rather to  eating a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי). </li> | ||
| + | <li><b>Blood sacred even then</b> - One could have alternatively suggested that blood was already prohibitted to Noach and that perhaps from the very first sacrifices brought by man, blood was already allotted to Hashem and not to man.</li> | ||
| + | </ul></point> | ||
| + | <point><b>Connection to fat</b> – These sources assume that the two prohibitions share a single explanation; both fat and blood are Hashem's portion and therefore prohibited to man.  It is for this reason that the two prohibitions are often mentioned together.</point> | ||
| + | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor compares the prohibition regarding blood to several other commandments which similarly stem from the fact that an object is sanctified to Hashem. He points to the prohibitions of making incense and the anointing oil or wearing wool and linen (a mixture reserved for priestly garments)<fn>See <a href="Purpose of the Laws of Hybrids" data-aht="page">Purpose of the Laws of Hybrids</a> for elaboration.</fn>, pointing out that in all these cases "דהוה ליה כמשמש בשרביטו של מלך ואסור", it is as if one is using the scepter of the king and is prohibited.</point> | ||
<point><b>General view of sacrifices</b></point> | <point><b>General view of sacrifices</b></point> | ||
| + | <point><b>לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם</b> – These sources suggest that this is a distinct prohibition and says nothing about not eating blood itself. Most, looking to the verse's immediate context of sorcery, relate it to certain divination practices in which blood of an animal was spilled and a meal was eaten in the belief that this would invite demons who could foretell the future.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Distancing from Idolatry | <category>Distancing from Idolatry | ||
Version as of 00:01, 12 December 2019
Prohibition of Blood
Exegetical Approaches
Blood is the Soul
Blood is prohibited from consumption since blood is the source or symbol of the animal's soul and life force. This position subdivides regarding why this is problematic:
Sacredness of Life
Refraining from eating blood, representative of an animal's vitality and soul, reminds one of the sanctity of all life. Eating it would be repugnant and both demonstrates and invites cruelty.
Mixing of Animal and Human Nature
Sanctified to Hashem
Since the blood of animals is thrown on the altar and sanctified to Hashem, it is not fit for human consumption.
Sources:Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,12 Ramban #1, Ralbag #2, Abarbanel #1, R. Avraham Saba, Netziv, R. David Zvi Hoffmann
"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" – This verse forms the basis for this approach, but commentators focus on different aspects of it, leading to two related, but somewhat distinct understandings of the prohibition:
- Apportioned to Hashem – According to Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ramban, the crucial point of the verse is that the blood is dedicated to the altar.13 Blood is off limits to man because it is Hashem's portion of the sacrifice (חלק גבוה).
- Role in atonement – Ralbag, Abarbanel and R. Hoffmann, instead, focus on the blood's role in atonement.
- R. Hoffmann explains that if the animal's blood is supposed to represent and substitute for the sinner's soul, being sacrificed in the sinner's stead, it is inappropriate for it to be consumed.14
- Ralbag adds that Hashem wanted to ensure that man recognize the atoning powers of blood so that he feel that his sacrifice was effective in achieving penance. As such, Hashem prohibited its consumption, highlighting its unique role.15
"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ" – According to this approach, this phrase comes to explain not why it is prohibited to eat blood, but why blood was chosen to serve as atonement and is sprinkled on the altar. Since blood represents or is the source of the animal's soul, it can represent man's soul and act as its substitute on the altar.
Why is blood of non-sacrificial meat prohibited? As only the blood of domesticated animals being offered as a sacrifice is sanctified to Hashem and used for atonement, this approach must explain why blood of "בשר תאווה" (meat eaten for pleasure) and non domesticated animals and birds are also prohibited:
- Safeguard – Ramban suggests that this is simply a safeguard to ensure that no one err and eat the blood of animals which can be sacrificed.
- Distinct prohibition – R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,16 though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.17
Spilling vs. covering blood
- These sources explain that since the blood of non-domesticated animals is not sprinkled on the altar, it was necessary to institute a different reminder that it is prohibited to eat of it and thus it is covered. No such reminder is necessary for domesticated animals eaten for pleasure, since those animals are associated with sacrifices and it is known that their blood in general serves to atone on the altar (even if in this particular instance the animal is being eaten).
- Ramban adds that in the Wilderness period, eating meat for pleasure, not as part of a sacrifice, was prohibited regardless, so the scenario never arose. By the time the nation settled in Israel, there was less of a need for a reminder, as the people were already accustomed to not eating blood.18
Prohibition to Noach – If the prohibition of blood is related to the sacrificial service, one might question why Noach was already commanded, ""אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" (Bereshit 9:4), centuries before the service was instituted:
- Different prohibtion - Most of these sources follow Bavli Sanhedrin 59a and assume that the prohibition to Noach did not refer to eating blood but rather to eating a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי).
- Blood sacred even then - One could have alternatively suggested that blood was already prohibitted to Noach and that perhaps from the very first sacrifices brought by man, blood was already allotted to Hashem and not to man.
Connection to fat – These sources assume that the two prohibitions share a single explanation; both fat and blood are Hashem's portion and therefore prohibited to man. It is for this reason that the two prohibitions are often mentioned together.
Biblical parallels – R"Y Bekhor Shor compares the prohibition regarding blood to several other commandments which similarly stem from the fact that an object is sanctified to Hashem. He points to the prohibitions of making incense and the anointing oil or wearing wool and linen (a mixture reserved for priestly garments)19, pointing out that in all these cases "דהוה ליה כמשמש בשרביטו של מלך ואסור", it is as if one is using the scepter of the king and is prohibited.
General view of sacrifices
לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם – These sources suggest that this is a distinct prohibition and says nothing about not eating blood itself. Most, looking to the verse's immediate context of sorcery, relate it to certain divination practices in which blood of an animal was spilled and a meal was eaten in the belief that this would invite demons who could foretell the future.
